Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
SEER Data (seer + data)
Selected AbstractsOriginal article: The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in the US: estimates from a simulation model confirmed by SEER dataDISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, Issue 6 2010T. J. Hayeck SUMMARY Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor and the biggest risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the solid cancer with the fastest rising incidence in the US and western world. Current strategies to decrease morbidity and mortality from EAC have focused on identifying and surveying patients with BE using upper endoscopy. An accurate estimate of the number of patients with BE in the population is important to inform public health policy and to prioritize resources for potential screening and management programs. However, the true prevalence of BE is difficult to ascertain because the condition frequently is symptomatically silent, and the numerous clinical studies that have analyzed BE prevalence have produced a wide range of estimates. The aim of this study was to use a computer simulation disease model of EAC to determine the estimates for BE prevalence that best align with US Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data. A previously developed mathematical model of EAC was modified to perform this analysis. The model consists of six health states: normal, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, undetected cancer, detected cancer, and death. Published literature regarding the transition rates between these states were used to provide boundaries. During the one million computer simulations that were performed, these transition rates were systematically varied, producing differing prevalences for the numerous health states. Two filters were sequentially applied to select out superior simulations that were most consistent with clinical data. First, among these million simulations, the 1000 that best reproduced SEER cancer incidence data were selected. Next, of those 1000 best simulations, the 100 with an overall calculated BE to Detected Cancer rates closest to published estimates were selected. Finally, the prevalence of BE in the final set of best 100 simulations was analyzed. We present histogram data depicting BE prevalences for all one million simulations, the 1000 simulations that best approximate SEER data, and the final set of 100 simulations. Using the best 100 simulations, we estimate the prevalence of BE to be 5.6% (5.49,5.70%). Using our model, an estimated prevalence for BE in the general population of 5.6% (5.49,5.70%) accurately predicts incidence rates for EAC reported to the US SEER cancer registry. Future clinical studies are needed to confirm our estimate. [source] Meeting the 12 lymph node (LN) benchmark in colon cancer,JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, Issue 1 2010A. Rajput MD Abstract Background Examining ,12 LN in colon cancer has been suggested as a quality metric. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the 12 LN benchmark is achieved at NCCN centers compared to a US population-based sample. Methods Patients with stage I,III disease resected at NCCN centers were identified from a prospective database (n,=,718) and were compared to 12,845 stage I,III patients diagnosed in a SEER region. Age, gender, location, stage, number of positive nodes were compared for NCCN and SEER data in regards to number of nodes evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to identify factors associated with evaluating 12 LNs. Results 92% of NCCN and 58% of SEER patients had ,12 LN evaluated. For patients treated at NCCN centers, factors associated with not meeting the 12 LN target were left-sided tumors, stage I disease and BMI >30. Conclusions ,12 LN are almost always evaluated in NCCN patients. In contrast, this target is achieved in 58% of SEER patients. With longer follow-up of the NCCN cohort we will be able to link this quality metric to patterns of recurrence and survival and thereby better understand whether increasing the number of nodes evaluated is a priority for cancer control. J. Surg. Oncol. 2010;102:3,9. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Effect of Social Class Disparities on Disease Stage, Quality of Treatment and Survival Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients from Developing CountriesTHE BREAST JOURNAL, Issue 4 2008Zeba Aziz MD Abstract:, To assess the relationship between social class disparities on disease stage on presentation, quality of treatment, and survival outcome of breast cancer patients in Pakistan and compare our data with SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) data from US on white and African-American women to evaluate differences in disease stage and survival outcomes. Patients were evaluated for age, tumor size, grade, receptor status, stage, and 5-year survival and were compared with SEER data. Socio-economic status was evaluated with financial income. Patients were divided in poor and middle/high groups. Excellent and comparable 5-year survival with SEER data was observed with localized disease in all groups from different strata. Advanced disease was more common in the disadvantaged group with negligible 5-year survivals. Development and implementation of early detection programs, public awareness, and clinical and breast self examination that are more pragmatic in the settings of countries with limited resources are essential. [source] Estimating breast cancer-specific and other-cause mortality in clinical trial and population-based cancer registry cohortsCANCER, Issue 22 2009James J. Dignam PhD Abstract BACKGROUND: To compute net cancer-specific survival rates using population data sources (eg, the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program), 2 approaches primarily are used: relative survival (observed survival adjusted for life expectancy) and cause-specific survival based on death certificates. The authors of this report evaluated the performance of these estimates relative to a third approach based on detailed clinical follow-up history. METHODS: By using data from Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trials in breast cancer, the authors estimated 1) relative survival, 2) breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) determined from death certificates, and 3) BCSS obtained by attributing cause according to clinical events after diagnosis, which, for this analysis was considered the benchmark "true" estimate. Noncancer life expectancy also was compared between trial participants, SEER registry patients, and the general population. RESULTS: Among trial patients, relative survival overestimated true BCSS in patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer; whereas, in patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer, the 2 estimates were similar. For higher risk patients (younger age, larger tumors), relative survival accurately estimated true BCSS. In lower risk patients, death certificate BCSS was more accurate than relative survival. Noncancer life expectancy was more favorable among trial participants than in the general population and among SEER patients. Tumor size at diagnosis, which is a potential surrogate for screening use, partially accounted for this difference. CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical trials, relative survival accurately estimated BCSS in patients who had higher risk disease despite more favorable other-cause mortality than the population at large. In patients with lower risk disease, the estimate using death certificate information was more accurate. For SEER data and other data sources where detailed postdiagnosis clinical history was unavailable, death certificate-based estimates of cause-specific survival may be a superior choice. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society. [source] The value of medical interventions for lung cancer in the elderly,CANCER, Issue 11 2007Results from SEER-CMHSF Abstract BACKGROUND. Lung cancer is the leading source of cancer mortality and spending. However, the value of spending on the treatment of lung cancer has not been conclusively demonstrated. The authors evaluated the value of medical care between 1983 and 1997 for nonsmall cell lung cancer in the elderly US population. METHODS. The authors used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data to calculate life expectancy after diagnosis over the period 1983 to 1997. Direct costs for nonsmall cell lung cancer detection and treatment were determined by using Part A and Part B reimbursements from the Continuous Medicare History Sample File (CMHSF) data. The CMHSF and SEER data were linked to calculate lifetime treatment costs over the time period of interest. RESULTS. Life expectancy improved minimally, with an average increase of approximately 0.60 months. Total lifetime lung cancer spending rose by approximately $20,157 per patient in real, ie, adjusted for inflation, 2000 dollars from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s, for a cost-effectiveness ratio of $403,142 per life year (LY). The cost-effectiveness ratio was $143,614 for localized cancer, $145,861 for regional cancer, and $1,190,322 for metastatic cancer. CONCLUSIONS. The cost-effectiveness ratio for nonsmall cell lung cancer was higher than traditional thresholds used to define cost-effective care. The most favorable results were for persons diagnosed with early stage cancer. These results suggested caution when encouraging more intensive care for lung cancer patients without first considering the tradeoffs with the costs of this therapy and its potential effects on mortality and/or quality of life. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society. [source] Trends in the incidence and treatment of parathyroid cancer in the United StatesCANCER, Issue 9 2007Peter K. Lee MD Abstract BACKGROUND. Parathyroid cancer is a rare cause of hyperparathyroidism. The objectives of this study were to determine the patterns of disease, treatment trends, and outcomes among patients with parathyroid cancer by using a population-based data source. METHODS. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data were used to identify patients who were diagnosed with parathyroid cancer from 1988 through 2003. To assess whether the incidence rate, treatment, tumor size, and cancer stage changed over time, the Cochrane-Armitage trend test was used, and Cox proportional-hazards modeling was used to identify the factors associated with an improved overall survival rate. RESULTS. From 1988 through 2003, 224 patients with parathyroid cancer were reported in the SEER data. Over that 16-year study period, the incidence of parathyroid cancer increased by 60% (1988,1991, 3.58 per 10,000,000 population; 2000,2003, 5.73 per 10,000,000 population). Most patients (96%) underwent surgery (parathyroidectomy, 78.6% of patients; en bloc resection, 12.5% of patients; other, 4.9% of patients). The rate of surgical treatment increased significantly during the study period. The 10-year all-cause mortality rate was 33.2%, and the 10-year cancer-related mortality rate was 12.4%. Patient age (P < .0001), sex (P = .0106), the presence of distant metastases at diagnosis (P = .0004), and the year of diagnosis (P = .0287) were associated significantly with the overall survival rate. Tumor size, lymph node status, and type of surgery were not associated significantly with the overall survival rate. CONCLUSIONS. Although parathyroid cancer is rare, the incidence increased significantly in the United States from 1988 through 2003. Young age, female gender, recent year of diagnosis, and absence of distant metastases were associated significantly with an improved survival rate. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society. [source] Cancer incidence after localized therapy for prostate cancerCANCER, Issue 5 2006Kihyuck Moon MD Abstract BACKGROUND. Second cancers may occur in patients who have undergone radiation therapy. The risk for these adverse events after therapy is uncertain. In this study, the authors examined the size and significance of the observed association between occurrences of secondary cancers 5 years after radiotherapy in a large population of men with incident prostate cancer. METHODS. Men with incident prostate cancer were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry and were distinguished by the type of treatment received, tumor stage, tumor grade, and age at diagnosis. SEER data also were used to identify occurrences of secondary cancer beginning 5 years after the date patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted odds of the subsequent occurrence of other cancers associated with types of radiation therapy received and was adjusted for the type of surgery, tumor grade, stage, and patient age. RESULTS. Compared with men who received no prostate cancer-directed radiation, men who received external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) as their only form of radiation therapy had statistically significant increased odds of developing secondary cancers at several sites potentially related to radiation therapy, including the bladder (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.44,1.84) and rectum (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.29,1.99). Men who received EBRT also had statistically significant higher odds of developing secondary cancers at sites in the upper body and other areas not potentially related to radiation therapy, including the cecum (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10,1.70), transverse colon (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.30,2.63), brain (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.22,2.75), stomach (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09,1.75), melanoma (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09,1.53), and lung and bronchus (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13,1.37) compared with the odds among men who received no radiation therapy. Men who received radiation therapy in the form of radioactive implants or isotopes, either in isolation or combined with beam radiation, did not have significantly different odds of secondary cancer occurring at any of the 20 most common sites. CONCLUSIONS. Patients who received with EBRT had significantly higher odds of developing second cancers both overall and in the areas that were exposed to radiation. It is noteworthy that, to the authors' knowledge, this report shows for the first time that, despite the higher doses of radiation delivered, patients who received radioactive implants had the lowest odds of developing second cancers. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society. [source] The continuing increase in the incidence of primary central nervous system non-Hodgkin lymphomaCANCER, Issue 7 2002A Surveillance, End Results analysis, Epidemiology Abstract BACKGROUND Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is an extranodal form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma arising in the craniospinal axis. The incidence of PCNSL appears to be increasing. METHODS PCNSL incidence data from 1973,1997 were obtained from the nine Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries. To limit the influence of the human immunodeficiency virus on incidence rates, data of never,married males and females and persons of unknown marital status were excluded. As a surrogate for new technology, SEER data were reviewed by dates of diagnosis (surrogate for imaging) and compared with glioma incidence (surrogate for stereotactic neurosurgery and improved diagnostic neuropathology). Age-adjusted incidence rates were estimated and compared for the period prior to computed tomography (CT) (1973,1984) and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) period (1985,1997). The estimated annual percent change was calculated based on linear regression analyses using SEER*STAT. RESULTS The incidence of PCNSL appears to be increasing in all SEER registries examined. All age groups demonstrated an increase over time. This increase was observed both in the CT era as well as in the MRI era. PCNSL age-adjusted incidence (0.15 to 0.48, a 3-fold increase) outpaced that of systemic lymphoma (14.1 to 18.5, a 33% increase) for the same registries over the same time periods. The rate of increase has begun to slow since 1985; the estimated annual percent change for PCNSL was three-fold higher during the period 1973,1985 compared with 1986,1997. CONCLUSION The incidence rate of PCNSL continues to rise. The increase is evident in all age groups and in both genders. Data from the current study suggest that improved diagnostic tools, such as CT or MRI, cannot explain this increase. Cancer 2002;95:1504,10. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10851 [source] | ||||||||||